About Me

Name:Boris Tiraspolsky
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Crippled by political correctness

"We find ourselves crippled by political correctness and incapable of having honest conversations about meeting the threats around the world."

______________________

Threats to America
By Bill Gertz
 
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned in a major speech yesterday that the United States is facing the danger of defeat today similar to Britain in the early days of World War II. Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare

"I think the significant strategic shortcoming or failing in the war on terror is that we have not gone through the strategic, doctrinal analysis of the enemy, we haven’t distilled and elaborated his threat doctrine. Because we haven’t done that, we do not have a fully articulated global threat model for the war on terror. We do not have a common analytic paradigm that all our government agencies can access, use and understand, to explain how potential threats, like to homeland security, will manifest themselves from that paradigm."



Jihad: According to Quran and Sunnah
(click here)
____________________________

Army Colonel Says U.S. Needs Better Focus in the War on Terror
By Matt Korade, CQ Staff

To better understand the Quranic basis of jihad as practiced by extremists without sifting through a library of interpretations, you should read one book above all others, says Lt. Col. Joseph Myers. “The Quranic Concept of War,” by Pakistani Brig. Gen. S.K. Malik in the late 1970s, isn’t much studied in the West. But it should be, Myers said, if America, and more specifically, the U.S. military, wants to gain a better understanding of the enemy in the war on terrorism. Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The arguments for striking Iran

"It is unwise for a president to attack a country when his own country is not united. It is unwise to attack Iran when Russia is supporting Iran. It is unwise to make the world’s most sensitive oil artery into a war zone. The U.S. economy is already in trouble. Oil has gone above $120 per barrel. There are limitations to power, and it may be difficult for President Bush to accept those limitations. Will he strike Iran?" 



A Dangerous Passage
by J. R. Nyquist

Statesmen in the West are concerned that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran officially denies any such attempt. “We are developing peaceful nuclear power,” they declare. As if to fuel fears and suspicions abroad, the Iranians refuse the kind of oversight that would ensure their program is peaceful. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wonders why the Iranians insist on enriching uranium on their own terms. Why would an oil rich country risk confrontation with the United States to develop a few nuclear power plants it doesn’t need? Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Take Down Terrorist Content, Google!

"I ask you, therefore, to immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations from YouTube. This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons identifying their provenance." - Joe Lieberman 


Joe Lieberman,
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman
__________________________________

LIEBERMAN CALLS ON GOOGLE TO TAKE DOWN TERRORIST CONTENT
YouTube Videos Are Produced by Al Qaeda and Other Terror Organizations; Videos Show Attacks on U.S. Soldiers, Civilians

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., Monday called on Google to remove Internet video content produced by terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. The videos – readily available on YouTube –show assassinations, deaths of U.S. soldiers and civilians, weapons training, incendiary speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and other material intended to encourage violence against the West. Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That's not going to happen, Senator!

Some time ago the Time magazine published an article "Why Barack Obama could be the next President". Here is my reply why Senator Barack Obama could NOT be the next President.  



Senator Barack Obama said: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Comment by Boris Tiraspolsky:
 

I agree with Senator's passionate quest for U.S. leadership.

However, I have my big reservations about what that leadership actually is about. 

According to Senator Obama, the U.S. leadership starts with a temperature lower then "72  degrees at all times" in our homes, it continues with restriction to "eat as much as we want" and sustaining by driving other vehicles than SUV's,  

That is not enough!

According to  the same Senator Obama, for all the above "we" the American people have to get a permission of "other countries".
 
Senator, are you out of your mind?
 
What you are saying is certainly NOT leadership. 
 
It is a call for a DEPRIVATION and DEPENDENCY of the American people.   

This short statement of yours categorically disqualifies you from any leadership, including but not limited to  the Presidency of the United States.

Regardless of what  the Time magazine published about you, that's not going to happen, Senator! 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Strategic thoughts about the U.S. War on Terror

"The U.S. War on Terror in which the current combating Islamic jihadists represents just one of many operational fragments has no time limits, no precise topography and requires anti-terrorist operations that form unlimited number of battlefields on three major anti-terrorist Theatres of War: Military, Economic and Ideological."



Three Theatres of Anti-Terrorist War
by Boris Tiraspolsky,
Founding Member of 
Modern terrorist warfare is in essence undeclared total war for exhaustion enemy’s human and economic resources. It is de facto rapidly escalating global confrontation between diverse and relatively small groups of terrorist-aggressors, their sponsors, and very loosely organized anti-terrorist resistance formed out of different States either directly attacked by terrorists and/or anticipating terrorist attacks in the future. In other words, modern terrorist warfare is in fact unconventional total siege warfare (Read more...).
  

In this type of war all involved sides are using “totality of maneuvers” of conventional and unconventional Instruments and Forces with an intent as much as possible to reduce enemy’s military power, decrease enemy’s economic capacity and diminish enemy’s ideological strength with a strategic objective to brake enemy’s will to resist.

The U.S. War on Terror in which the current combating Islamic jihadists represents just one of many operational fragments has no time limits, no precise topography and requires anti-terrorist operations that form unlimited number of battlefields on three major anti-terrorist Theatres of War: Military, Economic and Ideological.

In contrast to the World War I and World War II, where each Theatre of War was relatively independent, Military, Economic and Ideological theatres of modern terrorist warfare characterize hierarchal dependency on each other. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that all three anti-terrorist Theatres will become integral parts of “useful” Operational Art and function simultaneously as ONE BATTLE WITH TERROR unifying efforts of both the U.S. Government and the U.S. population.

It is impossible to deny that the Military Theatre of anti-terrorist operations logically including Law Enforcement and Intelligence, totally depends on engaging operations of anti-terrorist Economic and Ideological Theatres. On the contrary to terrorist economic Instruments of Terror (Read More...), Economic Theatre is operating with anti-terrorist Economic Instruments and Economic Forces (Read more...). The latter are fully responsible for anti-terrorist economic mobilization of the Nation.

Ideological Theatre of anti-terrorist war forms the top of the mentioned above hierarchy. Both, Military and Economic Theatres entirely counts on Ideological Theatre responsible for anti-terrorist ideological mobilization of the Nation. Its realization wholly relies on a presence in battle superior defensive and offensive ant-terrorist Ideological Instruments and anti-terrorist Ideological Forces necessary to withstand ideological Instruments of Terror (Read more...) and sustain the will of the Nation to resist.
     
In other words, when the U.S. Military - arguably the best military on the planet - performs successful anti-terrorist operation - this is a direct result of a right coordination and mutual effort of all three Theatres of War: Military, Economic and Ideological. On the conrary, any U.S. Military defeat needs to be looked at first in weaknesses of defensive and offensive U.S. anti-terrorist Economic and Ideological Instruments and Forces. The very Instruments and Forces the Nation still does not have available in battle with Terror.  
 
When it comes to U.S. anti-terrorist Ideological Instruments, let me reiterate what I said many times: it is unrealistic to successfully conduct ideologically charged battle with Terror without an inclusive U.S. anti-terrorist Ideological Education on all levels and mighty U.S. anti-terrorist Public Relations, or rather anti-terrorist Propaganda Machine combining mass media, press, book publishing, Internet, and etc. It is not viable, whatsoever, to win “ideological struggle” without ideologically charged arts, including “useful” Performing Arts (Read more...) - drama, opera, ballet, music, motion pictures, TV shows, radio shows, and other basic Ideological Instruments.
 
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude: due to the mentioned above specifics of modern terrorist warfare, and without available superior defensive and offensive anti-terrorist Economic and Ideological Instruments and Forces, forming along with the Military Theatre also Economic and Ideological Theatres of anti-terrorist war, the War on Terror cannot and will not be won by using just U.S. Military might alone. It is true, regardless of how powerful and superior U.S. Military Instruments and Forces could be.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Actor-director Sean Penn said...

"I got a question for your daughters Mr. Bush. They're not children anymore. Do they support your policy in Iraq? If they do, how dare they not be in uniform, while the children of the poor; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and all the other American working men and women are slaughtered, maimed and flown back into this country under cover of darkness." - Sean Penn 


Sean Penn the actor-director-turned-political-activist


Sean Penn the actor-director-turned-political-activist said:  ”I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring. But he has a phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional voting record. I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be, This is the most important election, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe ever.”

Comment by Boris Tiraspolsky:

While one can agree with Sean Penn that "this is the most important election", it is hard to digest how Sean Penn with his own record of ideological collaboration with U.S. ideological enemies (Read more...) has a nerve to accuse Barack Obama of "a phenomenally inhuman and unconstitutional voting record".

I always thought that Sean Penn and Barack Obama  should ideologically join each other in the same anti-war camp. Well... Now I wonder! Does Sean Penn know something more "inhuman and unconstitutional" facts about Barack Obama then all of us already do? (Read more...)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Bush said...

The first time the U.S. House of Representatives has voted against funding for the Iraq war.
 

President Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided. We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Senator Barack Obama responded:
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people."

Comment by Boris Tiraspolsky: 
President Bush did not point out at anyone particular, but the truth hurts. The swift reaction by Senator Obama bears a withes of inflicted by the truth pain. Let me remind you another quote by Senator Obama: "The day that this president [Bush] steps down, the entire world [including 91 million of Islamic jihadists] will breath a sigh of relief."  
 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded: "President's remarks were beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation. I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

Comment by Boris Tiraspolsky: 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does need to "disassociate" herself from those comments by President Bush. The truth is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a long and shameful record of negotiating with the terrorists and radicals. (Read more...)
 
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel responded: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

Comment by Boris Tiraspolsky:
Does chairman Rahm Emanuel have no shame? It is not president Bush promoting "partisan politics" when it comes to the War on Terror, but chairman Rahm Emanuel who is never tired to say: "The fact is, Bush's war policy has failed. It's failed!". As an opposite to the president's irrevocable position to combat Terrorism chairman Rahm Emanuel offers nothing less then “The Democratic message beat the Republican message.” 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The shortcomings of government power

"First, the enemy was "terrorism." Then those we battled were "cowards." Then Bush got closer by referring to "Islamo-fascists." Later, his State Department prohibited the use of that term as well as "jihadists."



How Bush lost the war
by Ideological Warrior of the Nation - Joseph Farah
 
President Bush faced one of the greatest challenges of any leader in American history – and came up short. Not since 1812 had the mainland of the U.S. been attacked by a foreign enemy – and never before Sept. 11, 2001, were so many civilians killed in such an attack. Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Useful Art of Strategic Thinking

Winston Churchill once said: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.” The article '2007: Strategic Thinking Needed in Fighting Global Jihad' by By Jeffrey Imm was published on the December 31 2006. Approximately at the same Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler, USAF deputy director for the war on terrorism within the strategic plans office of the Pentagon's Joint Staff made his strategic remarks about ideological nature of the War on Terror (Read More...). Obviously, strategic thinking never comes easy. However, it looks like our enemy - Islamic jihadists have it, and we still do not get it.  - Boris Tiraspolsky


Useful Art of strategic thinking
__________________________

2007: Strategic Thinking Needed in Fighting Global Jihad
by By Jeffrey Imm

The United States of America has some of the smartest leaders in government, military, and business in the world. Yet the American government has failed to collectively use this formidable brain-power 5+ years after the attack by Jihadists on the American homeland to develop a truly strategic plan to fight the global threat of Jihad and Islamist extremism. In one of the most complex wars in American history, rather than starting with holistic, big-picture thinking towards the challenges and prioritizing resources and actions accordingly, America has spent much of the past five years after 9/11 in reactive and bureaucratic churning. Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Growing Power of U.S. Bureaucracies

"The United States have developed a gigantic system of Federal, State and Local Bureaucracies. This bureaucratic structure consists of millions “pen pushers” that fall into three major categories: elected officials, appointed administrators, and so-called “career bureaucrats“. 


U.S. Federal, State, and Local Bureaucracies
______________________________

 New Class - Professional Bureaucrats
by Boris Tiraspolsky,
Founding Member of
 
I do not think that all problems of the Nation can be resolved by the State and the State only. On the contrary, my position is that the State should be involved in life of the people as less as possible, and most importantly, the State should employ as fewer bureaucrats as possible.

However, the reality is that the Nation cannot be preserved, protected and defended from enemies foreign and/or domestic without a strong State. Consequently, the latter cannot operate without Bureaucracies in all three branches of the Government. 

The United States have developed a gigantic system of Federal, State and Local Bureaucracies. This bureaucratic structure consists of millions “pen pushers” that fall into three major categories: elected officials, appointed administrators, and so-called “career bureaucrats“. 

The smallest part of these U.S. Bureaucracies consisting of more then half a million people who are elected officials. Therefore, they could be accountable to their electorates, and changed, if necessary, by the Will of the People of the United States at local, State and Federal elections. 

Another part of U.S. Bureaucracies is formed out of political appointees. They serve at a pleasure of their elected political bosses. Therefore, these bureaucrats are not directly accountable to the People. Although, they could be stripped of their positions when their superiors are voted out of their political offices, or in some cases they could be impeached. 

However, the predominant majority of U.S. Bureaucracies on all levels of the Government consists of an uncounted and unaccountable army of “career bureaucrats” - local, State and Federal. They are never elected by anyone and serve either political party, regardless of political and ideological differences. There is no doubt that time has come to rethink the role of U.S. Bureaucracies. (Read more...)  

The truth of the matter is that these constantly growing Bureaucracies concentrate the actual Power of the U.S. Government in their hands. The Power usurped by the “career bureaucrats” in either branch of the U.S. Government indicates an appearance of a “new class” in a society. This new class developed own new culture of  - PROFESSIONAL BUREAUCRATS.   

The latter with a very few exceptions are interested in nothing, but the Power and grabbing more Power and privileges for themselves. Needless to stress, that extensively growing professional bureaucracies in the United States are an indication of a decay of the State, corruption of the Government, and clear and present danger for a survival of the Nation at a time of the current “crisis of human affairs“. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrorist State within a legitimate State

"One must passionately argue any ideological attempts by Islamic spiritual Leaders to convince the World in "peaceful" nature of Islam. That ideological fight should become an integral part of the War on Terror, until Islamic spiritual Leaders publicly declare all terrorists with no exception to be "infidels", and begin to recruit Muslims to support jihad against Islamic terrorists politically, economically, socially, and culturally. Otherwise, all Islamic spiritual Leaders and all Muslims following them are in fact, ideological collaborates with terrorists."- Boris Tiraspolsky 

  
Political map of Iraq and Iran
______________________________________

Iranian terrorism
by Bill Gertz

Army Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, chief spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, revealed this week the extensive Iranian government involvement in arming terrorists in Iraq through Lebanese Hezbollah proxies. "The reality of this is they're not only killing American forces, they're killing Iraqis, they're killing Iraqi security forces, and they are disrupting the stability in Iraq, and it's a concern for the government of Iraq, for the Iraqi forces and the Iraqi people, that they would expect their neighbor to play a more helpful and less damaging role in their country," Gen. Bergner told reporters. Continued...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I want to live in freedom

"Here's what I want you, as an American, to remember about interdependence. It's just another name for "dependence." If you are interdependent, you are dependent. Instead of being dependent on one entity, you are simply dependent on multiple entities. That's not an improvement over dependence, it's actually worse. "

An interdependent world
_______________________

The meaning of 'interdependence'
 
I predicted this a long time ago. I knew it was coming. I warned you. You've got to watch the way our language is being bastardized – the way new euphemisms are invented to push old agendas. Specifically, I told you years ago to watch out when you heard the word "interdependence." Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Daily Prayer for the Nation


Lord, save the United States in battle with Terror from our Military being robbed of its Invincible Spirit, from our Commander-in-Chief being robbed of  presence of his Clear Mind, and from the People of the United States being robbed of their Constitutional Responsibility "to promote the Progress of...  useful Arts", as Ideological Weaponry for combating Terrorism ideologically and sustaining the Will of the Nation to resist Terror. 

American Ideological Society - Useful Art of Prayer

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Complacency about the Jihadist enemy

"Clearly the American people need an accounting of who voted against this amendment.  The members of this House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (of any party) who rejected this amendment have an obligation to inform the American people why they do not view defining the Jihadist enemy as a priority in authorizing funding for intelligence operations."



Jihad and U.S. Intelligence Resources
By Jeffrey Imm

How could the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence authorize "the largest funding increase in the base Intelligence Budget in history", but refuse to include an amendment that calls for identifying the Jihadist enemy we fight? But that is precisely what happened on May 8. Continued...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive